( 1 ) THE appellant-plaintiff M/s. Azad Ice Factory, a registered partnership firm had purchased certain property. M/s. Krishna Ice Factory from whom the property was purchased, at the time of the purchase of the property even had informed the plaintiff that there were certain dues of Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation, the plaintiff accordingly discharged the liabilities. It is the case of the plaintiff that from the letters of the defendant, it was clear that amount of Rs. 35,556. 75 remained unpaid. According to them, all of a sudden, somewhere in the year 1984, they received a notice dated 10. 3. 84 from the defendant that the plaintiff was liable to pay sum of Rs. 3,63,481/ -.

( 2 ) IT appears that thereafter, the respondent submitted a certificate for recovery before the Collector/recovery Officer under the provisions of the Gujarat Public Moneys [recovery of Dues] Act, 1979 [hereafter referred to as the "recovery Act"]. The Collector, exercising his powers under Section-3 of the Recovery Act issued an order of attachment and also issued certain notices to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, instead of appearing before the Collector, filed the present Regular Civil Suit No. 129/86 in the court of the learned Joint Civil Judge[junior Division]. The plaintiff submitted that the respondent-defendant had no authority to submit such certificate and in any case, the Collector had no jurisdiction to effect attachment. They prayed that a declaration be granted in favour of the plaintiff, that it be declared that the impugned order dated 25. 12. 85 attaching the plaintiff s machinery and implements was illegal, unconstitutional, contrary to the principles of natural justice and could not be maintained. They also prayed for permanent injunction against the defendant. The defendant appeared before the Court and submitted that the Collector had jurisdiction in accordance with law to issue attachment order, the order of attachment was legal and valid and that the suit was not maintainable in view of sub-section [4] of Section-3 of the Recovery Act. The plaintiff along with the suit had filed an application for grant of interim injunction, at the time of hearing of the application, objection relating to maintainability of the suit was also considered by the Court. After considering the objections, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain such suit, it accordingly dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 4. 10. 86. The appellant, being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 43/86 which was heard and decided by the learned Assistant Judge at Porbandar, who, by his judgment dated 22nd September, 1987 dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, has filed the present Second Appeal. The appeal has been admitted for hearing on 23. 3. 88 on the following substantial question of law:-"whether the suit is barred under Sections 3 and 4 of the Gujarat Public Money Recovery Act""

( 3 ) MR. Ashish Shah, learned counsel for the appellant submits that Section-3 of the Recovery Act confers jurisdiction upon a creditor to make an application with a certificate to the Collector for making recovery against the defaulter/debtor and the Collector, thereafter, would be entitled to make an inquiry and then can proceed to recover the amount. He submits that sub-section [4] of Section-3 simply says that no suit for the recovery of any such due as aforesaid [as referred to in sub-section [1] of Section-3] shall lie in a civil court against any person referred to in sub-section[1]. He also submits that the mandate of the law is that no injunction shall be granted by the Civil Court in respect of any action taken or intended to be taken in pursuance of the right conferred by Section-3. He submits that the law prohibits filing of the suit at the instance of a creditor, but does not prohibit a debtor or any third party to file a s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document